5 ms·

I'm not saying he was wrong, but it's certainly an over simplification. I don't know where he was getting his steel, and it seems very likely that the source o

I'm not saying he was wrong, but it's certainly an over simplification. I don't know where he was getting his steel, and it seems very likely that the source of US steel near him was of really low quality. The US steel near me is generally higher quality than the chinese steel around here. For simple hot or cold rolled steel, both are fine. If you need nice steel, or nice case iron, the Chinese material is bad. You can't really grind any chinese cast iron that I have seen precisely, and none of the steel that I've seen from there has been clean or dimensionally accurate. For most uses, that doesn't matter, and it is totally fine. The European and American tool steel is FAR FAR better than anything that I've seen from china. I tend not to use chinese HSS for steel, since it breaks so easily. Source: taking a break from machining steel on a bridgeport

legitster 7y ago
Yeah, completely anecdotal. Also not sure of where they imported steel from. But it is interesting to hear that quality does differ region to region based on the local needs. Again, that makes the case that imported steel vs domestic steel isn't a clear cut issue if proximity matters.
- forgingsheep 7y ago
  I do imagine he was correct for what he was talking about too, I just don't want people to get the impression that US steel is all crap.
nordsieck 7y ago
> I'm not saying he was wrong, but it's certainly an over simplification. Precisely. In the knife world, many (dare I say most) of the best tool steels used for knife making are made by Crucible Industries, a US company. For example, the dominant steel used to make knives for bladesports[1][2] is CPM M4. ___ [1] http://www.bladesports.org/WP/ http://www.bladesports.org/WP/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkemT5ciBnw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkemT5ciBnw
Gibbon1 7y ago
His grandfather was likely getting steel from Japan and Europe 30 years ago. I'd totally believe it would be much higher quality than US steel.
Tsubasachan 7y ago
They put tariffs on all steel- not just China. Seriously I fear that Trump is running out of people to piss off. But hey if you can get those votes in swing districts thats all that matters in the end. A few thousand steelworker votes are more important than all votes in California for POTUS2020 so expect more of the same.
- systematical 7y ago
  We avoided the tyranny of the majority in favor of the tyranny of the minority
- leetcrew 7y ago
  > A few thousand steelworker votes are more important than all votes in California for POTUS2020 so expect more of the same. I hope you appreciate that this is a very disingenuous argument. the Californian voters would get a lot more attention if they didn't all vote the same way every time.
  - pixl97 7y ago
    First past the post demands it.
dexen 7y ago
>the US steel was very low quality >The US steel near me is generally higher quality than the chinese steel around here While this may seem contradictory, it's perfectly natural on an open market. There's always some demand for cheap, low quality steel and also some demand for the expensive, high quality steel. Knocking together a bookshelf has much different requirements than building a car; the economy needs both. For the low quality, cheap steel, transportation costs would constitute a higher fraction of cost than for high quality, expensive one. Thus it makes sense to buy the low quality locally, while importing the high quality from far away - where the low q would not be cheap enough due to the transportation. Nonetheless the US has enough of know-how and infrastructure to produce high quality materials whenever there's enough demand. I firmly believe the current round of tariffs are primarily a geopolitical tool - aimed mostly at imports from China, to help with geopolitical negotiations and also encourage diversification of import sources. Likewise with the recent kerfuffle with Mexico - where the proposed tariffs were used to entice them to handle the immigration crisis. To the boot, the article emphasizes the effect is not really protectionist.
- jjwhitaker 7y ago
  One dilemma is the tariff is more a tax on imports, paid by consumers ie citizens. It complicates trade form China and may convince suppliers or buyers to purchase goods from an alternative source, if available, but has major up front costs. In terms of diversifying supply, tariffs may have an impact over time but due to no preparation by US firms to set up alternative supply chains or sourcing before implementation and considering how many goods come out of China, the US probably will lose a lot more long term than any feasible gains. Without an alternative in place, China can mostly wait it out. For example, US agriculture like soy beans lost the China market, but China has alternatives able to pick up capacity like from Brazil. Soy Beans aren't a highly refined or engineered product, just a crop that can be grown in bulk in many places around the world. Although the tariffs may now be pushing Apple to source for other countries, there is no in place alternative for a refined, highly engineered good like an iPhone. Short term Apple is hit hard and long term may move to be impacted less, but at the end of the day consumers see higher costs due to the import tax and long term price increases as Apple has to make back their investment in a diversified supply chain. Meanwhile, Us farmers won't get that soy bean market back for many years which will have serious repercussions in that industry. As a geopolitical tool for trade negotiation a tariff is not great, especially if misused or over used. In this case, targeted tariffs could be an extra straw on top of negotiations to push through a final deal or late stage negotiation. Instead it has been a hammer/nail situation without complexity. Think of it more as the flashy dinner with open bar to seal the deal and less a first time around the table tactic. With the Mexico tariff being a bluff given Mexico had already agreed to discuss or take actions before the tweet was even made, it is feasible the current administration could be smarter about their trade policies or at least try to add nuance to benefit their cards in negotiations. There are better ways of getting someone to the table namely targeted sanctions that don't tax you own citizens or wipe out agricultural exports. As others have said here, there is more than enough material to impose sanctions in many sectors like stolen IP/technologies, human rights violations and concerns, military posturing, and more. Simplifying trade negotiation to tariff this and tariff that is not only a poor tool and negotiation tactic but also damaging to our economy, directly and in the short and long term. We come out behind pretty much regardless of what deal is made, if any.

legitster 7y ago

Yeah, completely anecdotal. Also not sure of where they imported steel from. But it is interesting to hear that quality does differ region to region based on the local needs. Again, that makes the case that imported steel vs domestic steel isn't a clear cut issue if proximity matters.

forgingsheep 7y ago
I do imagine he was correct for what he was talking about too, I just don't want people to get the impression that US steel is all crap.

nordsieck 7y ago

> I'm not saying he was wrong, but it's certainly an over simplification. Precisely. In the knife world, many (dare I say most) of the best tool steels used for knife making are made by Crucible Industries, a US company. For example, the dominant steel used to make knives for bladesports[1][2] is CPM M4. ___ [1] http://www.bladesports.org/WP/ http://www.bladesports.org/WP/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkemT5ciBnw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkemT5ciBnw

Gibbon1 7y ago

His grandfather was likely getting steel from Japan and Europe 30 years ago. I'd totally believe it would be much higher quality than US steel.

Tsubasachan 7y ago

They put tariffs on all steel- not just China. Seriously I fear that Trump is running out of people to piss off. But hey if you can get those votes in swing districts thats all that matters in the end. A few thousand steelworker votes are more important than all votes in California for POTUS2020 so expect more of the same.

systematical 7y ago
We avoided the tyranny of the majority in favor of the tyranny of the minority
leetcrew 7y ago
> A few thousand steelworker votes are more important than all votes in California for POTUS2020 so expect more of the same. I hope you appreciate that this is a very disingenuous argument. the Californian voters would get a lot more attention if they didn't all vote the same way every time.
- pixl97 7y ago
  First past the post demands it.

dexen 7y ago

>the US steel was very low quality >The US steel near me is generally higher quality than the chinese steel around here While this may seem contradictory, it's perfectly natural on an open market. There's always some demand for cheap, low quality steel and also some demand for the expensive, high quality steel. Knocking together a bookshelf has much different requirements than building a car; the economy needs both. For the low quality, cheap steel, transportation costs would constitute a higher fraction of cost than for high quality, expensive one. Thus it makes sense to buy the low quality locally, while importing the high quality from far away - where the low q would not be cheap enough due to the transportation. Nonetheless the US has enough of know-how and infrastructure to produce high quality materials whenever there's enough demand. I firmly believe the current round of tariffs are primarily a geopolitical tool - aimed mostly at imports from China, to help with geopolitical negotiations and also encourage diversification of import sources. Likewise with the recent kerfuffle with Mexico - where the proposed tariffs were used to entice them to handle the immigration crisis. To the boot, the article emphasizes the effect is not really protectionist.

jjwhitaker 7y ago
One dilemma is the tariff is more a tax on imports, paid by consumers ie citizens. It complicates trade form China and may convince suppliers or buyers to purchase goods from an alternative source, if available, but has major up front costs. In terms of diversifying supply, tariffs may have an impact over time but due to no preparation by US firms to set up alternative supply chains or sourcing before implementation and considering how many goods come out of China, the US probably will lose a lot more long term than any feasible gains. Without an alternative in place, China can mostly wait it out. For example, US agriculture like soy beans lost the China market, but China has alternatives able to pick up capacity like from Brazil. Soy Beans aren't a highly refined or engineered product, just a crop that can be grown in bulk in many places around the world. Although the tariffs may now be pushing Apple to source for other countries, there is no in place alternative for a refined, highly engineered good like an iPhone. Short term Apple is hit hard and long term may move to be impacted less, but at the end of the day consumers see higher costs due to the import tax and long term price increases as Apple has to make back their investment in a diversified supply chain. Meanwhile, Us farmers won't get that soy bean market back for many years which will have serious repercussions in that industry. As a geopolitical tool for trade negotiation a tariff is not great, especially if misused or over used. In this case, targeted tariffs could be an extra straw on top of negotiations to push through a final deal or late stage negotiation. Instead it has been a hammer/nail situation without complexity. Think of it more as the flashy dinner with open bar to seal the deal and less a first time around the table tactic. With the Mexico tariff being a bluff given Mexico had already agreed to discuss or take actions before the tweet was even made, it is feasible the current administration could be smarter about their trade policies or at least try to add nuance to benefit their cards in negotiations. There are better ways of getting someone to the table namely targeted sanctions that don't tax you own citizens or wipe out agricultural exports. As others have said here, there is more than enough material to impose sanctions in many sectors like stolen IP/technologies, human rights violations and concerns, military posturing, and more. Simplifying trade negotiation to tariff this and tariff that is not only a poor tool and negotiation tactic but also damaging to our economy, directly and in the short and long term. We come out behind pretty much regardless of what deal is made, if any.